-PMW Clinical Innovations v. Amed, No. 2:2010cv00152 - Document 36 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 31 Motion to Amend 2 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/21/2011. (jtj)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION CLINICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:10-cv-152-CW-PMW v. AMED, INC. dba ATLANTIC MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant. District Judge Clark Waddoups Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Clinical Innovations, LLC s ( Plaintiff ) motion for leave to amend its complaint.2 AMED, Inc. dba Atlantic Medical Systems, Inc. ( Defendant ) opposes Plaintiff s motion.3 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f). 1 See docket no. 18. 2 See docket no. 31. 3 See docket no. 34 Plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is governed by rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under that rule, [t]he court should freely give leave to amend pleadings when justice so requires. Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The decision about whether to provide a party leave to amend its pleadings is within the discretion of the trial court. Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations and citation omitted). Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment. Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citation omitted). The court is not persuaded by Defendant s futility arguments. For that reason, and based upon the liberal standard for granting leave to amend pleadings under rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff s motion for leave to amend its complaint4 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of January, 2011. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 4 See docket no. 31. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.